What happens when you see an unmarked car on your property and some guy snooping around

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by MrWendal

 

Let me break this down for you and I will use simple words so that you can understand.

Let me make sure I got this right..... a police officer in an unmarked car, invites himself onto your property and if you go to check it out and end up dead, you blame the victim?

No, I don't blame the victim for being shot by the police officer that was on his property, I blame the victim for not using common sense and so allowing a situation that could have been cleared up by a simple phone call to escalate to the point where he ended up dead.

Maybe in your glorified girlie world do you just call the cops, but in my world if you are on my property I will come out and find out who you are. If you happen to be armed, you better be a faster draw and a better shot than I am.
What you call "common sense" I call being a wussy.

Apparently the old man believed the same way you do, apparently he went out armed and look what happened.

Again, if he had called the cops, the dispatcher on the phone could have told him the car in his parking lot was a cop and so the old man might not have had to go out and investigate on his own.

Let me ask you..... what if you call the cops and they don't show up? I dont live on Park Ave, there are many calls in my area that are flat out ignored because they are not a priority, and some stranger sitting in a car and not doing anything. is one of those low priority calls

I don't live in park avenue either, and when I worked in Detroit, going out to a strange car is about the dumbest thing you can do.

Of course again in this case with the strange car being a cop, a simple phone call to the cops would have solved the mystery of the strange car quickly and without anyone having to die.

So like I said, common sense should have prevailed, apparently you don't have this vital skill and I do hope that you learn it. Things like this can be prevented if people actually think before trying to be a hero themselves.

[edit on 8/27/2010 by whatukno]

There is no need to make things simple, as I can assure you I am more than capable of keeping up. I can also assure you that I have plenty of common sense... but for the sake of argument, let's find out if I do or not by examining this a little closer shall we?

Now you say you are not blaming the victim, yet you also say...

I blame the victim for not using common sense and so allowing a situation that could have been cleared up by a simple phone call to escalate to the point where he ended up dead.

Now explain this to me like I was a 5 year old... are you blaming the victim or not? I never made mention of what you are blaming the victim for, I simply stated you are blaming the victim, and as you admitted above, you are clearly blaming the victim. So feel free to dress it up in some pretty little wrapping paper all you want, but it is what it is and you sir are blaming the victim.

You also say the victim was armed... well that has not been entirely established. From your article it states...

Creach, who lives next door to his nursery and has served as pastor of Greenacres Baptist Church for 40 years, approached the officer. A confrontation ensued, according to police. The officer fired his weapon, according to a news release from Spokane police spokeswoman Jennifer DeRuwe. A handgun was found on the ground next to Creach after the shooting.

Now what the article does not tell us is...

a) How this gun came to be at the side of the body
b) If the victim is the registered owner of the gun
c) What was the "confrontation"
d) what about this "confrontation" cause the officer to fear for his life and feel that he needed to discharge his weapon


Now COMMON SENSE tells me that the obvious confrontation is that this man went to the officer's vehicle to find out why he was parked on his property in the middle of the night. That would also be his right to do so. So why did he end up dead? Are you really going to try to tell me that this victim, a pastor who has been in that community for 40+ years, even if armed would not have lowered his weapon if the officer had identified himself? What about the responsibility of the police to notify this man that they would be on his property? Are you going to tell me there is not enough public property available that the officer just had to be on private property, in the middle of the night, in order to do his job? Someone was lacking some common sense, and it certainly was not the victim. Again... notice the words used in the article... there was some type of "confrontation" PRIOR to him being shot and killed. So at no time during this "confrontation" was the officer able to identify himself as police and explain what he was doing on this man's property in the middle of the night?

Now it is easy to see how you came to the conclusion that the victim was armed and charged outside with reckless abandon because the article goes on to say..

A worker at the greenhouses said that Creach had been protecting his property for 15 years and had gone out at night to check on the land armed with a gun.

What the article does not tell us is..
a) Was this worker at the scene at the time of the shooting?
b) Was the victim armed at the time of the shooting?
c) Did he goes outside armed when he saw this unmarked car sitting on his property?

What it tells us is that someone who worked there knew that the victim at times would check the property and do so armed. Again, that is his right do so. Now I would argue that doing so would be common sense, also from your article..

However, he recently provided information to the Spokane Valley City Council showing that burglaries in July had nearly doubled compared to the same month in 2009. And, reports of car prowling have jumped from 63 last July to 156 this year. “We establish hot spots of areas where there is a concentration of incidents of crime that occurs,” Van Leuven said. “Based on that, we try to proactively police those areas.” The area where the shooting took place is located in one of those designated “hot spots” established by the department’s criminal analysis team.

So now what we have here is a 74 year old man, who has been in a pastor in the community for 40+ years. Who was working, living, and protecting this same property for the last 15 years, in a high crime area, gunned down on his own property.... because a strange car, in the middle of the night, was parked on his property (also the location of his business, his livelihood) and he went to check to it out?

Now beyond that... there is also another issue that should be addressed, in the interest of common sense or lack of. Also from the article...

W. Scott Creach, 74, approached the police officer who had gone to his business before midnight after police had received a request for increased patrols there earlier in the day, police said.

and then goes on to say...

The request for patrols was passed along to the graveyard shift, but DeRuwe refused to say who made the request for extra patrols.

Now the purpose of a police patrol is to create a visible increase in police presence as a way to deter crime. So how are you accomplishing a visible police presence by sitting in an unmarked car? I am sure I also do not have to explain the difference between patrolling and parking.

So feel free to blame the victim all you want, the fault in my eyes clearly falls on the officer who shot him, but I am sure in the coming weeks we will find out how this 74 year old man was such a menacing force that this officer was in fear for his life and had no choice but to end the victim's. Of course I could be wrong... as obviously I am just a simple man who lacks common sense

reply to post by harvib

I'm not going back through the thread to find them but I recall seeing at least 2 posters saying something to the effect that the cop won't get a trial or investigation. I absolutely agree that there should be a trial and don't think I implied otherwise. I could have worded what I was trying to imply better regarding the bias situation. There was some talk that seemed to be taking the fact that he was elderly and a pastor and trying to twist it into something that in mind wasn't relevant in the situation, at the time and in the assumed dark. I was simply just trying to say that at night a person looks like a person.

I don't think I stated anything that said or implied that I am or was biased toward the cop. I gave examples that I thought both of them could have done wrong and even said it outright; "I can speculate that either of them did something during the confrontation that was wrong, maybe even both of them." There are good and bad people and ones that make mistakes regardless of their occupation, religion, color or otherwise but I don't believe in immunity because of it. I am not by any means choosing a side here.

Originally posted by harvib

 

Admittedly, there are differences in what constitutes trespassing on residential property vs. property operating as a business due to the offer to enter that a business creates.

This is the tricky part for my mind. It appears the business and personal residence are on the same property. How is it zoned and what does that change legally regarding the cop being there since they were called for increased suspicious activity.

I was also at first a bit surprised that the Spokane police were investigating the incident but Spokane Valley appears to be a suburb of Spokane city proper. Quoting your own source states "Spokane County Sheriff’s Office, which staffs Spokane Valley Police." I could be wrong and don't know how separated the investigating authority needs to be but I see us looking at three different police departments.

Originally posted by harvib

 

In this case a man was gunned down where the only surviving witness was the gunman. It doesn't seem to be in dispute that the man in the unmarked car was the killer.

I would challenge you to find a law that allows law enforcement to legally kill someone that doesn't apply to the rest of us.

Agreed that the cop killed the guy and I doubt that it's in dispute but isn't there still a question if it was perceived as justified? Anyone could be acquitted of killing someone if it was perceived as self defense. From the beginning of this story, I've been considering almost exactly what whatukno theorized as to what could have happened. What is the outcome then? Who was right and who was wrong? The property issue certainly comes into play again along with a host of other issues. Personally, I wouldn't want to be on that jury if that's what happened and it's what my gut is telling me did happen.

Originally posted by whatukno
Course again, this all could have been avoided with one phone call, the dispatcher could have told the man that the mysterious car outside was a cop and to not worry.

Course again, this all could have been avoided with one phone call from the cops, the dispatcher could have told the man that the mysterious car outside was a cop and to not worry.

Why do you gloss over this fact? Biased yourself much?

Some here think that would make the guy a wuss, or weak, or stupid, but he still would be alive. (Kinda eliminates the stupid theory)

But kinda illuminates the stupid theory of the cops eh?

The cop on the other hand, what was he doing in the parking lot to begin with? Well it appears that he was told to go there, which eliminates the revenge idea.

Yeah. He was told to go there. With no prior warning to the property owner. Which would have saved his life. But, no the cops don't need to respect the people they are to protect, eh?

Still doesn't mean he wasn't there just to shoot the old man, could mean that he was there to shoot just anyone that he came across. The fact that the old man had a gun with him is just a happy coincidence then. Unless of course, the cop wasn't out to just kill someone that night, which kinda points to a massive misunderstanding.

Yes. A misunderstanding the cops could have prevented. Why are you so dense that you can't see this?

Then the theory goes, old man sees mysterious car in his parking lot, as per his normal reaction grabs the gun, goes down into the parking lot to scare off what he thinks is a prowler, he is in the shadows (it's familiar territory for him, so he knows how to sneak up on the car without the occupant noticing that he is there) he gets to the car, startles the officer, an argument ensues, the man is old, he may be hard of hearing, the cop doesn't identify himself adequately, the man probably isn't too clear on who he is either, pulls his gun on the guy that is pointing a gun at him. (At this point the cop probably doesn't know that this is the property owner, and probably thinks it's a bad guy with a gun.) The cop fears for his life, (natural reaction to someone pointing a gun at you) He shoots, the guy goes down and he calls it in. Only latter finding out that he blew away an innocent man of god and flower peddler.

Again. A simple call would have negated this.

See, in this theory, the cop isn't a bloodthirsty murderer of a flower peddler, but a startled cop and human being reacting to an unknown person with a gun.

Well, he wouldn't have to be "startled" if he would have let the guy know he was going to be on his property. Now would he?

So in this scenario does this cop deserve the chair?

Not unless it goes to trial and he is found negligent. But let me ask: Does the cop deserve preferential treatment?

[edit on 29-8-2010 by Nutter]

Originally posted by Three_moons
There are good and bad people and ones that make mistakes regardless of their occupation, religion, color or otherwise but I don't believe in immunity because of it. I am not by any means choosing a side here.

Why does it have to come down to good and bad apples? Maybe both are good? I mean, this cop, or this preacher could have messed up. The point is, the only one alive is the cop. Should we just let him walk because he is a cop?

Had it been anyone else, they surely would not be walking around. Correct?

This is the tricky part for my mind. It appears the business and personal residence are on the same property. How is it zoned and what does that change legally regarding the cop being there since they were called for increased suspicious activity.

I would say its' the same as the rules saying that a bed-n-breakfast has the right to not serve whome they choose. Correct?

Anyone could be acquitted of killing someone if it was perceived as self defense.

After first being arrested and then having to go through a jury trial correct. Not so for the cops. Why? If we are to be fair and square here.

Who was right and who was wrong?

The property owner was right in going to check on his own property. The cop was wrong in not notifying the property owner and then killing him. Plain and simple. Scaried cat cop or not.

The property issue certainly comes into play again along with a host of other issues. Personally, I wouldn't want to be on that jury if that's what happened and it's what my gut is telling me did happen.

If that is what your gut is telling you what happened, then why try and deny it? If it was a homeless man would you be defending him also?

[edit on 29-8-2010 by Nutter]

reply to post by Three_moons

I absolutely agree that there should be a trial and don't think I implied otherwise.

I think I misunderstood what you were saying. My apologies.

was also at first a bit surprised that the Spokane police were investigating the incident but Spokane Valley appears to be a suburb of Spokane city proper. Quoting your own source states "Spokane County Sheriff’s Office, which staffs Spokane Valley Police." I could be wrong and don't know how separated the investigating authority needs to be but I see us looking at three different police departments.

The way I am interrupting it is that the agency that staffs the sherrifs department is the same agency that is investigating the killing. I am not certain of that however. Either way I think at this point charges should already be filed. If my assumptions are correct that the killer is known and the death was wrongful.

This is the tricky part for my mind. It appears the business and personal residence are on the same property. How is it zoned and what does that change legally regarding the cop being there since they were called for increased suspicious activity.

I think whether or not the killer was trespassing prior to the killing is relatively moot because the event of the killing certainly made it a trespass. However I would argue that he was certainly trespassing prior to the killing because he created enough of nuisance to cause the victim to get out of bed, grab protection, and proceed outside. In which case regardless of if the property is a business or not is always a trespass.

Agreed that the cop killed the guy and I doubt that it's in dispute but isn't there still a question if it was perceived as justified? Anyone could be acquitted of killing someone if it was perceived as self defense. From the beginning of this story, I've been considering almost exactly what whatukno theorized as to what could have happened. What is the outcome then? Who was right and who was wrong? The property issue certainly comes into play again along with a host of other issues. Personally, I wouldn't want to be on that jury if that's what happened and it's what my gut is telling me did happen.

I think you and I agree that it is a juries job to sort out what was justified. And I think Whatukno's theory is certainly possible. However more nefarious situations could also have come into play. As others have theorized.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by whatukno
The Pastor forgot the most important rule, you NEVER EVER approach a strange car at night.

A symptom of a weak and dependent species.

Let someone else deal with it.

So if you come home and find your house ablaze you're not going to call the fire department and instead grab a hose and a bucket?

Kiss that place goodbye.

It is the JOB of the Police to respond to suspicious situations like that and they are more equipped to handle them than the average citizen.

It's not "letting someone else deal with it" it is what we PAY them for with our taxes. I wouldn't advise anyone to go outside in the middle of the night to the suspiciously parked car of a stranger to see what they are doing there.

Especially if you think they are a prowler.

The way you have it though, I should be ashamed to call the I.T. Department when my interoffice email won't work.

- Lee

reply to post by Nutter

Originally posted by Nutter
I mean, this cop, or this preacher could have messed up. The point is, the only one alive is the cop. Should we just let him walk because he is a cop? Had it been anyone else, they surely would not be walking around. Correct?

I don't know where you're getting this from. I've clearly stated more than once, in different posts and in different ways that I believe there should be an investigation and a trial. I've never said the cop should walk away from this because of his title and profession.

If I'm reading between the lines correctly, you're questioning why he is not in jail while he is being investigated according to the protocol of the police department? Maybe I've been misinterpreting your "let him walk". I've been taking that as him not getting a investigation and trial but you seem to mean that as why he's not in jail? That a fair question at least and I understand where you're coming from. I don't know the answer to that and can understand your frustration as being treated differently than a civilian. Maybe NightGypsy could shed some light on this from his perspective and experience. Besides the fact that he's not in jail during the investigative procedures what else is different? Is this whole "cops being above the law" regarding the fact that he's not in jail right now? There's still an investigation and trial and if found guilty he still goes to jail. I could use some clarification on this part because I'm unsure if I'm understanding you correctly.

I don't know and don't pretend to know the law as it pertains to the situation and is why I haven't placed any judgment towards anyone. There's been a lot of talk here regarding whether the police officer was in a proper, legal place at the time which I simply don't know the answer to. I've heard enough through the years to know that situations such as this with a business and residence on the same piece of property could have different meanings pursuant to the legalities of private property and the rights associated with it. Every town also has their own individual laws so without knowing the facts I will not say "it's the same" as you have in your example. By saying so does not mean that I am siding with the police but rather that I prefer to hold judgment until all the facts are presented. Deny ignorance.

I'll say it again, there should be an investigation and a trial. If they find the cop guilty of homicide then he should go to jail for the crime he committed, just like anyone else, regardless if they're a civilian, a cop, or otherwise. And just for kicks and giggles I don't agree with diplomatic immunity either. Let's assume for a moment that this case goes to trial and the jury finds the cop innocent. Will you accept what a jury of peers decides?

I certainly agree that the property owner had the right to defend his own property. But I'm not going to outright defend the owners actions when I don't know what they were. Find some of the people through the years that have been trespassing his property and determine how he handled the situation and his firearm. Did he hide in the bushes firing warning shots in the air? Did he shine his flashlight chasing people while wildly brandishing his firearm? This would give me some context to his character. Yes, I know he was an elderly pastor and I've read the nice things his family, friends, customers and parishioners said about him but it doesn't prove anything to me about his actions in the middle of the night, half asleep and rightfully annoyed at people vandalizing or stealing his property. This also doesn't mean that I'm defending the police.

It's questionable if the cop was wrong in not notifying the property owner as much as it's questionable if the owner was wrong in not calling dispatch to see if a cop was on his property since someone, possibly himself, asked for their services. We don't know what part of the property the cop was on and if he was allowed to be there. Did he just pull in the parking lot along the road, in a public area, at the edge of the road getting ready to call the owner that he was there or was he hiding in the rear parking lot for an hour? There's a huge difference in my mind. In the first scenario it's going to be tough for me to see what the cop did wrong and in the second scenario the cops' actions are highly questionable and I would most likely find him at fault. This is not "plain and simple" as you say because there's not enough information available to us to make a decision one way or the other. Reserve judgment.

Just because my gut is telling me something doesn't prove anything. Asking me why deny my gut only implies to me that you base decisions on gut feelings instead of facts. I placed my opinion there, not factual information; they're two different things. I prefer to base my decisions on facts, not speculation or gut feelings. I don't know why you're telling me that I'm defending anyone. I've tried to carefully word everything I've said to do the exact opposite and have instead tried to present facts and possibilities from both sides as well as bring additional factual information forward.

[edit on 8/29/2010 by Three_moons]

reply to post by harvib

No problem on the misunderstanding. I couldn't find the actual structure I was looking for however there are separate sites for the Spokane County Sheriff's Office, the Spokan Police Department and the Spokane Valley Police Department.

The SCSO has an organizational chart that didn't help me but I also found an accountability review that shows different cities which include Spokane and Spokane Valley so it does indeed appear that the SCSO is the top agency. The SPD has news about the shooting, although the SVPD doesn't , which might be the best place to find further and the most up to date news about it. It also shows a listing in their directory for an Internal Affairs division and also has an organizational structure available.

I can't agree with you regarding the trespassing issue but certainly agree that a jury needs to sort this out. I can't imagine this not going trial for any legitimate reason, can you? The possibility of a nefarious reason always exists although I haven't seen any information to positively sway my decision that way yet.

Sorry for the late reply, I wanted to make sure to include everyone in this...

reply to post by harvib

Just like a rape victim that if had made different decisions would have resulted in her not getting raped. Should we, in such, cases become apologist for the rapist? Should we demonize the victim? Should the rapist not face trial unless we agree on the appropriatness of how the victim used her rights? This is logic that is in opposition to a free society.

Strange, did the cop allegedly rape the old man? Is that what we are discussing here? If so, I obviously read the wrong article, can you please provide the article where the cop is accused of raping the deceased?

It doesn't matter if you agree with how someone exercises their rights. The law is not there to judge how one uses their rights. It is there to provide remedies for crimes. Killing another human being is always a crime however there are affirmative defenses that may be presented. But it is always a crime.

I am not saying the cop should not be investigated and if sufficient evidence warrants it, arrested, charged, and put on trial for any crime he may have committed, however at this point, in our criminal justice system he is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. But not according to the Court of ATS Opinion eh? Seems to me you have already convicted him.

Anything less is most certainly preferential treatment and an elevation to a status that is above the law. I hope you understand the implications of what that means.

I really don't see how this is preferential treatment, this is at this point an investigation, you cannot arrest someone unless you have evidence to arrest them on. Right now he is being investigated for any wrongdoing that may have taken place, remember, innocent until proven guilty.

reply to post by MrWendal

Now explain this to me like I was a 5 year old... are you blaming the victim or not? I never made mention of what you are blaming the victim for, I simply stated you are blaming the victim, and as you admitted above, you are clearly blaming the victim. So feel free to dress it up in some pretty little wrapping paper all you want, but it is what it is and you sir are blaming the victim.

Obviously it's a terrible tragedy that he got shot, and I don't blame him for getting shot. It's not like he asked to get killed. I blame him only for not using common sense. A "crime" that often get's the death penalty in the court of life.

You also say the victim was armed... well that has not been entirely established.

A worker at the greenhouses said that Creach had been protecting his property for 15 years and had gone out at night to check on the land armed with a gun.

So your assertion is that this one time somehow the departed broke with his 15 year long tradition of checking on his property with a gun and this one time he was unarmed? Doesn't sound right to me.

Now COMMON SENSE tells me that the obvious confrontation is that this man went to the officer's vehicle to find out why he was parked on his property in the middle of the night. That would also be his right to do so.

Yes, but how did he go to find out why the car (remember this was an unmarked police car), was parked in his parking lot, also remember, this is not only his private residence, it's also his business. Was he armed? Apparently according to the OP article, it would appear that he was. Unless of course this one time he broke with his 15 year long tradition of going out armed.

So why did he end up dead?

If you don't know this, you haven't been paying attention at all.

Are you really going to try to tell me that this victim, a pastor who has been in that community for 40+ years, even if armed would not have lowered his weapon if the officer had identified himself?

You are assuming a lot here, you are assuming that the cop had time to determine that the property owner was in fact the property owner in a split second, also within that moment you assume that the property owner was in a calm frame of mind, you also assume that a 74 year old man can see, and hear perfectly, and you assume that two men pointing guns at each other are going to talk rationally. That is a hell of a lot of assumptions you have going there for that singular moment in time.

What about the responsibility of the police to notify this man that they would be on his property?

I work at a business, there is no responsibility for the cops to notify the business owner that they are on their property, it happens here all the time, almost weekly. So yea, the police don't have a responsibility to tell the business owner that they are on the property.

Again... notice the words used in the article... there was some type of "confrontation" PRIOR to him being shot and killed. So at no time during this "confrontation" was the officer able to identify himself as police and explain what he was doing on this man's property in the middle of the night?

Does the article explain how long that confrontation was? No it doesn't so we don't know if the standoff was 10 seconds or an hour. Seeing as how a man is dead, I am thinking it wasn't too long of a confrontation.

Now the purpose of a police patrol is to create a visible increase in police presence as a way to deter crime.

Not always, sometimes a police patrol is used to catch crime in the act. (increases revenue for the city) Hard to do in a marked car, that is why they have unmarked cars.

So feel free to blame the victim all you want, the fault in my eyes clearly falls on the officer who shot him

Nice, so now you are assuming that the officer is guilty? Great, so much for innocent till proven guilty.

reply to post by Nutter

Course again, this all could have been avoided with one phone call from the cops, the dispatcher could have told the man that the mysterious car outside was a cop and to not worry.

That is not feasible for several reasons.

1. People have police scanners, this includes criminals.
2. If the property owner is the one being investigated it kinda screws up the investigation doesn't it? Or do you assume that property owners never commit crimes?
3. It would be an endless full time job for police to notify every business owner (not all of which are available) that a cop is on their property, not to mention that it may tip off criminals that cops are there.

So this whole point of yours is pathetic, stupid and moronic.

The person has the obligation and the right to find out why cops are on their property, when they do, the cops have the obligation to tell the person why they are on their property. Your point is pathetic and stupid.

The property owner has a right to protect their property, in that right is also the obligation to find out who they are protecting their property from, if it is the police, it's the property owner's right and obligation to find out themselves that the police are on their property, not the other way around.

reply to post by whatukno


Let's see. We have a former LEO in here who has agreed with me that SOP is to inform a property owner that their property will be used. And my arguments are stupid?

Please site the law which states a policeman can be on your property without consent, without a warrant, and has not seen a crime committed on the property or someone ran into the property. I want to see the actual law. Because if it exists, I want to try and change this law (lawfully of course).

You make a good point about the business owner being surveilled, but in this case that was not what was going on. So, that would be a strawman argument.

As far as tipping off the criminals, how does a phone call tip off criminals? Do they have secret surveillance equipment that taps their preys phones?

reply to post by Three_moons


What I mean by "walking free" is that any one of us would have been booked, sent to a holding cell while we wait for bail to be set (more money for the State). After bail is reached the person can "walk free". If not, then they remain in jail until trial. If they "walk free", they "walk free" until trial. In both cases, then and only then do we find out the findings of the investigation and whether the killer (yes, if you have killed someone, you are a killer) is justified in the killing or not by jury trial.

Why do cops get to skip the whole booking and bail procedure that the rest of us have to go through? Why, in a lot of times, do cops get to skip the whole trial procedure at all? I'm not saying that is what is going to happen in this case.

That, in my book, is preferential treatment. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree?

Let me add. If the roles had been reversed, I would definately be saying the property owner would deserve booking, bail, trial etc. also.

reply to post by Three_moons

I couldn't find the actual structure I was looking for however there are separate sites for the Spokane County Sheriff's Office, the Spokan Police Department and the Spokane Valley Police Department.

I think your original premise is correct. The incident happened in Spokane valley and is being investigated by the Spokane police.

I can't agree with you regarding the trespassing issue but certainly agree that a jury needs to sort this out.

I would like to hear the defense's argument because I think it is a relatively clear case of a trespass. They would need to rebut the fact that the victim was caused to arise out of bed, grab protection, and proceed outside in the middle of the night. I guess they could claim that he made regular patrols around his property or that the prowlers themselves are causing a nuisance and that the property owner is extra sensitive and noises and automobiles that aren't a nuisance per se still caused the owner to investigate caused by the nuisance presented by the prowlers. Seems like a little bit of a stretch but juries have certainly bought into worse.

I can't imagine this not going trial for any legitimate reason, can you?

I really can't either. Not unless there was a warrant which there doesn't seem to be. Especially since there was only one "officer" present and it was the middle of the night.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Nice job censoring the article by leaving out any detail that might explain why the cop was there and what may have precipitated his use of deadly force. In you summary, you stated that no one had called the police. However, the article states that people had by requesting increased patrols in the area. The guy who was shot was also armed with a pistol when he went out there.

Now, we don't know exactly what happened but you might consider not leaving out important details like that next time you wish to frame an article. It makes you look biased....which you obviously are by the way.

Originally posted by Nutter
reply to post by Three_moons

 

Why do cops get to skip the whole booking and bail procedure that the rest of us have to go through? Why, in a lot of times, do cops get to skip the whole trial procedure at all? I'm not saying that is what is going to happen in this case.

Simple answer - they don't. If the local prosecutor's office believes he was sufficient evidence to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt, then he will bring charges and the officer will be prosecuted - with arrest, bail, and trial.

reply to post by whatukno

Strange, did the cop allegedly rape the old man? Is that what we are discussing here? If so, I obviously read the wrong article, can you please provide the article where the cop is accused of raping the deceased?

You're messing with me here? Right? You have to be. Sorry whatukno but if you can't grasp the concept of an analogy or unfamiliar with their uses then you need to find a more juvenile forum. However I have a feeling that you understood just fine and are just trying to confuse the issue. Either way a more juvenile forum may be more appropriate for you.

I am not saying the cop should not be investigated and if sufficient evidence warrants it, arrested, charged, and put on trial for any crime he may have committed, however at this point, in our criminal justice system he is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. But not according to the Court of ATS Opinion eh? Seems to me you have already convicted him.

See here is the thing. It seems to be known who the killer was. The scenario you have proposed is possible. However the claim of self defense is almost always an affirmative defense. Except in cases where there is such a clear evidence of lawful self defense that any other scenario would be deemed improbable, such as the presence of multiple unrelated witnesses.

I would like to know what I have said that leads you to believe I have already convicted him? However I also don't believe there should be preferential treatment due to his affiliations. I would challenge you to find another case of similar circumstances, where the killer doesn't have the privilege of affiliation, where the killer wouldn't already be in custody. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

I can't imagine any probable scenario or evidence that would be sufficient to result in charges not being filed, at this point. And as part of the community at large if there isn't going to be charges filed then I wish to know what is so substantial and unique that would warrant such a subversion of justice.

I really don't see how this is preferential treatment, this is at this point an investigation, you cannot arrest someone unless you have evidence to arrest them on. Right now he is being investigated for any wrongdoing that may have taken place, remember, innocent until proven guilty.

Then show me one other instance where a person kills a man on the victims own property and is not already in custody. This is not normal treatment unless the killer is privileged with affiliation. In which case it is an unlawful subversion of justice and preferential treatment.

EDIT TO ADD:

The person has the obligation and the right to find out why cops are on their property, when they do, the cops have the obligation to tell the person why they are on their property. Your point is pathetic and stupid.

The property owner has a right to protect their property, in that right is also the obligation to find out who they are protecting their property from, if it is the police, it's the property owner's right and obligation to find out themselves that the police are on their property, not the other way around.

I know this response wasn't directed at me, however it is so erroneous that I'm compelled to reply.

First off show me the law that requires a person to have an obligation to find out why an individual is on their property.

Also show me the law that requires a person to identify that a person is a police officer.

Show me the law that inhibits a person from walking on his property in a lawful manner that requires him to first verify that there are no "police" on his property.

Find me the law that requires a person, in the necessity of protection. must first find out who the person is that they are protecting themselves or there property from.

Find me the law that gives such special rights to an individual due to his affiliations or occupation that his mere presence on private property removes or restricts a persons rights. And compels performance that is not compelled in the case of a person that doesn't have the same affiliations or occupation.

At this point, it is my belief, that you have shown a tremendous ignorance to individual rights and what that constitutes as well as our legal system. You make statements as if they are facts. However, I'm willing to admit that I may be the ignorant one. If so, the laws that you have indicated exist should be easily located as to correct my ignorance.








[edit on 29-8-2010 by harvib]

Originally posted by andrewh7
Simple answer - they don't. If the local prosecutor's office believes he was sufficient evidence to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt, then he will bring charges and the officer will be prosecuted - with arrest, bail, and trial.

You don't find this to be preferential treatment?

A man shoots another man on the murdered man's property with no other witnesses. The man is arrested, bail set, then a trial is where the investigation determines whether to convict or not.

A cop shoots another man on the murdered man's property with no other witnesses. The cop is not arrested until the investigation determines whether to arrest him or not.

In the words of the "Sesame Street" song......"one of these things is not like the other".......

[edit on 29-8-2010 by Nutter]

My heart goes out for the family and the officer. Another needless death in the line of duty. This happened in Dallas some years ago when the female homeowner shot the intruder investigating Plano officer to death and he killed her with return fire. Tragic but avoidable situations with some thinking in advance such as 911 or less confrontation. My best,

Reply to: post by harvib post by Nutter

Ok, I looked it up and guess what? The cop had a right to be in that parking lot and he had no obligation to tell the property owner that he was there.

First: He had the right to be in that property.

RCW 46.61.035

(a) Park or stand, irrespective of the provisions of this chapter;

So, unless you guys can find the specific law that states that the cop had an obligation to tell the property owner that he was on his property, your argument that he was under such an obligation is idiotic.

Also, in order to arrest someone you have to determine that a crime was committed. That requires an investigation. That is what is happening now. If a crime has found to been committed, the officer will be arrested and arraigned on the charges.

I think that the both of you just want to see this cop fry, I think that the both of you have already decided that he is guilty and you don't give a crap about whether or not he has actually committed a crime.

If you arrest someone you have to have enough evidence to charge them with a crime, if you don't you ruin the case and because of double jeopardy you won't be able to arrest him again under that same crime.



[edit on 8/29/2010 by whatukno]

reply to post by whatukno

(1) The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle, when responding to an emergency call or when in the pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law or when responding to but not upon returning from a fire alarm, may exercise the privileges set forth in this section, but subject to the conditions herein stated.

Please tell me when the police officer was:

1. Responding to an emergency

2. In pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law

3. Responding to but not upon returning from a fire alarm

How does parking your unmarked car on a man's property equal any of these?

reply to post by Nutter


(a) Park or stand, irrespective of the provisions of this chapter;

What part of irrespective of the provisions of this chapter don't you understand?

[edit on 8/29/2010 by whatukno]